The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by bahman » Sun Feb 16, 2020 7:22 am

zinnat13 wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 5:38 am
I have to say that bahman stance is correct. Mind is a different entity from brain and brain does not manifest it either.

Brain is doing entity while mind obseves/feels that brain input data and redirect mind to act upon. to put in a more understablale terms, our body is hardware, Brain is a software and mind is a computer oprator, though most modern day intelletals disagree with this. But, they are wrong and this can be proved easily.

with love,
sanjay
+++

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by bahman » Sun Feb 16, 2020 7:52 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:44 am
The mind is the set of cognitive faculties including consciousness, imagination, perception, thinking, judgement, language and memory, which is housed in the brain (sometimes including the central nervous system).
It [mind] is usually defined as the faculty of an entity's thoughts and consciousness.[3] It holds the power of imagination, recognition, and appreciation, and is responsible for processing feelings and emotions, resulting in attitudes and actions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind#Philosophy_of_mind
The concept of mind above is a top down approach, i.e. starting with the empirical existence of a person [entity]'s actions which are activated from the person whole systems which is attributed to the mind as defined above.
The mind in this case is an emergent out of the person in interaction with its external environment.
Such a mind is empirically and philosophically verifiable and justifiable.
So you are arguing that mind is an emergent thing and role the person? There are three problems here: 1) How a thing could possibly emerge from physical activity? 2) If the mind is an emergent thing and there is the body also then we are dealing with dualism again and 3) Emergence is not possible (I have an argument for that).

Emergence is not possible: To show this consider a system with many parts each part has a set of properties. Now let’s assume that the system has a specific property. This property should not be reducible in terms of properties of parts if it is an emergent property. There must however be a reason that the system has this property rather than another property. This means that there is a function that describes the property of the system. The only available variables are however the properties of parts. Therefore the property of the system must be a function of properties of parts. Therefore there is no emergence since the existence of the function implements that the property of the system is reducible to properties of parts.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:44 am
Bahman's and Zinnat's theory assumed a pre-existing mind that exudes bottom-up to triggers the actions of the person.
This approach of a pre-existing mind that exists is baseless and groundless with no possibility of empirical verification justifications.
This theory is not tenable as reflected in the mind-body dualism problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem
The ultimate claim of a mind that is separate from the brain culminate in claiming an individual soul that exists and survives physical death. In addition, some would claim such a mind is a subset of a greater mind, i.e. God.
This claim is driven psychologically as compelled by an existential crisis. In this case, the independent mind as claimed is an illusion and cannot be anything real.
The mind is the fundamental entity of reality (I have an argument for that): Consider a change in a system, X to Y where X and Y are two states of affair. X and Y cannot coexist therefore X has to vanishes before Y is caused. There is, however, nothing when X vanishes and nothing cannot possibly cause Y. Therefore, there should exist a mind with the ability to experience X and cause Y. As we see the mind is involved in any change including in a change that is not caused by human. Therefore, the mind is a fundamental entity of any reality.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 3902
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:48 am

bahman wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 7:52 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:44 am
The mind is the set of cognitive faculties including consciousness, imagination, perception, thinking, judgement, language and memory, which is housed in the brain (sometimes including the central nervous system).
It [mind] is usually defined as the faculty of an entity's thoughts and consciousness.[3] It holds the power of imagination, recognition, and appreciation, and is responsible for processing feelings and emotions, resulting in attitudes and actions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind#Philosophy_of_mind
The concept of mind above is a top down approach, i.e. starting with the empirical existence of a person [entity]'s actions which are activated from the person whole systems which is attributed to the mind as defined above.
The mind in this case is an emergent out of the person in interaction with its external environment.
Such a mind is empirically and philosophically verifiable and justifiable.
So you are arguing that mind is an emergent thing and role the person? There are three problems here: 1) How a thing could possibly emerge from physical activity? 2) If the mind is an emergent thing and there is the body also then we are dealing with dualism again and 3) Emergence is not possible (I have an argument for that).

Emergence is not possible: To show this consider a system with many parts each part has a set of properties. Now let’s assume that the system has a specific property. This property should not be reducible in terms of properties of parts if it is an emergent property. There must however be a reason that the system has this property rather than another property. This means that there is a function that describes the property of the system. The only available variables are however the properties of parts. Therefore the property of the system must be a function of properties of parts. Therefore there is no emergence since the existence of the function implements that the property of the system is reducible to properties of parts.
I mentioned my approach is top-down and reducible to an emergent, not a thing-in-itself.

What is observable and verifiable are the empirical persons and all their actions.
What is observable and verifiable is the physical person's brain, body and his actions.
From the above empirical evidences we can infer all the above are traceable to a co-ordinated system X, and this X we label 'mind'.

Because what is 'mind' as labeled in this case cannot be verified like the person's brain, body, his actions, it is considered an emergent.
We just don't have the direct empirical evidence to identify that emergent as an entity or thing with its own properties.

To jump to conclusion that 'mind' is an entity or thing-in-itself is reifying an illusion out of nothing.
  • For example a 'wheel' is an emergent in a way.
    What is really a 'wheel' are merely parts of the spokes attached to the rim and axle.
    What is identified as a wheel is when all the parts together are put in the human context of the workings of a wheel in a carriage or the relevant vehicle.
    Non-humans will only see bits of the parts but not a wheel-in-itself.

    Even the rim of the 'wheel' is a sort of emergent.
    It is made of various parts and element combined together in a ring shape we identify as a rim of a wheel.

    We can reduce further, and there is no way we can end up with anything of substance that is identified as a thing-in-itself.
Another example is that of a song from a symphony orchestra;
  • There is no such thing as an 'symphony orchestra' in itself that produce the song.
    The symphony orchestra and the song are simply emergents from a bunch of musicians led by a conductor.
    That is no individual entity to be identified as THE symphony orchestra.
Similarly, the mind is an emergent out of the parts of the human person, his brain, body, other persons, the external environment all interlinked and working together that enable the person's mind to emerge and trigger human actions.

We human beings are too limited and not that great to identify an independent 'mind' within our empirical self.
The most we human beings can do is to rely on empirical verification with philosophical elements to understand whatever is inferred as 'mind' is merely an emergent.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:44 am
Bahman's and Zinnat's theory assumed a pre-existing mind that exudes bottom-up to triggers the actions of the person.
This approach of a pre-existing mind that exists is baseless and groundless with no possibility of empirical verification justifications.
This theory is not tenable as reflected in the mind-body dualism problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem
The ultimate claim of a mind that is separate from the brain culminate in claiming an individual soul that exists and survives physical death. In addition, some would claim such a mind is a subset of a greater mind, i.e. God.
This claim is driven psychologically as compelled by an existential crisis. In this case, the independent mind as claimed is an illusion and cannot be anything real.
The mind is the fundamental entity of reality (I have an argument for that):
Consider a change in a system, X to Y where X and Y are two states of affair.
X and Y cannot coexist therefore X has to vanishes before Y is caused.
There is, however, nothing when X vanishes and nothing cannot possibly cause Y.
Therefore, there should exist a mind with the ability to experience X and cause Y.
As we see the mind is involved in any change including in a change that is not caused by human.
Therefore, the mind is a fundamental entity of any reality.
Yes, there should be a mind with the ability to experience X and cause Y.
But there is nothing to justify that 'mind' is an independent entity from the empirical physical person's brain, body and environment.

Note Hume argued 'causation' is not due to one element X causing an effect Y.
Hume contented the root of causation is due to human psychology via the emergent mind due to customs, habits and exposure to constant conjunctions.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Sun Feb 16, 2020 9:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

zinnat13
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 7:30 pm
Location: India

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by zinnat13 » Sun Feb 16, 2020 9:01 am

The issue nedds more eloboration.

As i said in the previous post that is is very easy to prove that mind is not only have different existance from brain but unlike brain it is a singular entity. Brain can do mulitasking but mind cannot. This may look surprising to many but it is true. And, all this is that much easy to prove that we do not pay attention to it.

Think of a man driving a car at highway at a good speed. Some song is also playing in the car, which is the new one for the driver, And he liking it and also singing along. This continues to happen for some time, say 15-20 minutes, then, all of a sudden, From nowhere, a child comes in the front of the car. As the driver sees it. he applies full brakes,the car skids but he somehow manages not to hit the child. Now, consider that about one minute passes in all this.

Now, think of the driver and his ambience again. that song were still playing inside the car but the driver would not have listened that 1 min part of the song because, being a singilar and different entity from the brain, it was focus on saving the child, thus could not listen that part of the song. I thing that everyone would agree with this thought experiment.

But, how can this ever happen?

if we go by the conventional wisdom, as the song never stopped playing, so that voice must be also going into the driver's ears, and thus also to the brain of the driver, but actually he never listened that part.

If the brain is primal entity, not mind, how on the earth brain was unable to listen that song part?

Can anyone explain this using brain manifest mind theory?

with love,
sanjay

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by bahman » Sun Feb 16, 2020 11:55 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:48 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 7:52 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:44 am
The concept of mind above is a top down approach, i.e. starting with the empirical existence of a person [entity]'s actions which are activated from the person whole systems which is attributed to the mind as defined above.
The mind in this case is an emergent out of the person in interaction with its external environment.
Such a mind is empirically and philosophically verifiable and justifiable.
So you are arguing that mind is an emergent thing and role the person? There are three problems here: 1) How a thing could possibly emerge from physical activity? 2) If the mind is an emergent thing and there is the body also then we are dealing with dualism again and 3) Emergence is not possible (I have an argument for that).

Emergence is not possible: To show this consider a system with many parts each part has a set of properties. Now let’s assume that the system has a specific property. This property should not be reducible in terms of properties of parts if it is an emergent property. There must however be a reason that the system has this property rather than another property. This means that there is a function that describes the property of the system. The only available variables are however the properties of parts. Therefore the property of the system must be a function of properties of parts. Therefore there is no emergence since the existence of the function implements that the property of the system is reducible to properties of parts.
I mentioned my approach is top-down and reducible to an emergent, not a thing-in-itself.

What is observable and verifiable are the empirical persons and all their actions.
What is observable and verifiable is the physical person's brain, body and his actions.
From the above empirical evidences we can infer all the above are traceable to a co-ordinated system X, and this X we label 'mind'.

Because what is 'mind' as labeled in this case cannot be verified like the person's brain, body, his actions, it is considered an emergent.
We just don't have the direct empirical evidence to identify that emergent as an entity or thing with its own properties.

To jump to conclusion that 'mind' is an entity or thing-in-itself is reifying an illusion out of nothing.
  • For example a 'wheel' is an emergent in a way.
    What is really a 'wheel' are merely parts of the spokes attached to the rim and axle.
    What is identified as a wheel is when all the parts together are put in the human context of the workings of a wheel in a carriage or the relevant vehicle.
    Non-humans will only see bits of the parts but not a wheel-in-itself.

    Even the rim of the 'wheel' is a sort of emergent.
    It is made of various parts and element combined together in a ring shape we identify as a rim of a wheel.

    We can reduce further, and there is no way we can end up with anything of substance that is identified as a thing-in-itself.
Another example is that of a song from a symphony orchestra;
  • There is no such thing as an 'symphony orchestra' in itself that produce the song.
    The symphony orchestra and the song are simply emergents from a bunch of musicians led by a conductor.
    That is no individual entity to be identified as THE symphony orchestra.
Similarly, the mind is an emergent out of the parts of the human person, his brain, body, other persons, the external environment all interlinked and working together that enable the person's mind to emerge and trigger human actions.

We human beings are too limited and not that great to identify an independent 'mind' within our empirical self.
The most we human beings can do is to rely on empirical verification with philosophical elements to understand whatever is inferred as 'mind' is merely an emergent.
What you are addressing is soft emergence when the emergent property is a function of properties of parts. What we are dealing with here is a strong emergence. It is strong since the properties of the mind cannot be explained in terms of the properties of the brain parts. For example, we empirically know that any human person can decide. The decision, however, is not a deterministic thing whereas the brain is. So mind, whatever it is, it is an irreducible entity since the decision is not reducible to anything else, brain activity for example. This is said we are back to my objections. I repeat them for the sake of clarity: 1) Does the mind emerge (strong emergence) as a result of the brain activity?, 2) Is it a thing (it must be because it has ability to decide which brain does not have), 3) If the mind is an emergent thing and there is the body also then we are dealing with dualism again, and 4) Emergence is not possible (I provided an argument for that you need to refute).
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:48 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:44 am
Bahman's and Zinnat's theory assumed a pre-existing mind that exudes bottom-up to triggers the actions of the person.
This approach of a pre-existing mind that exists is baseless and groundless with no possibility of empirical verification justifications.
This theory is not tenable as reflected in the mind-body dualism problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem
The ultimate claim of a mind that is separate from the brain culminate in claiming an individual soul that exists and survives physical death. In addition, some would claim such a mind is a subset of a greater mind, i.e. God.
This claim is driven psychologically as compelled by an existential crisis. In this case, the independent mind as claimed is an illusion and cannot be anything real.
The mind is the fundamental entity of reality (I have an argument for that):
Consider a change in a system, X to Y where X and Y are two states of affair.
X and Y cannot coexist therefore X has to vanishes before Y is caused.
There is, however, nothing when X vanishes and nothing cannot possibly cause Y.
Therefore, there should exist a mind with the ability to experience X and cause Y.
As we see the mind is involved in any change including in a change that is not caused by human.
Therefore, the mind is a fundamental entity of any reality.
Yes, there should be a mind with the ability to experience X and cause Y.
But there is nothing to justify that 'mind' is an independent entity from the empirical physical person's brain, body and environment.
Please answer my objections (previous comment).
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:48 am
Note Hume argued 'causation' is not due to one element X causing an effect Y.
Hume contented the root of causation is due to human psychology via the emergent mind due to customs, habits and exposure to constant conjunctions.
Hume is then wrong. A reality without causation is static or chaotic. Our reality is dynamic and ordered.

zinnat13
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 7:30 pm
Location: India

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by zinnat13 » Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:00 pm

With due respect to Hume and other philosophers, no other philosopher in the whole of human history has ever harmed mankind that much to what extent he did.

With love,
Sanjay

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 1716
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by Sculptor » Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:29 pm

bahman wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 7:18 am
Sculptor wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 11:48 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 10:21 pm

So don't have mind and body?
Are you talking about a cod or you?
Where does the mind end and the body begin?
You can add as many "ands" ans you like, but you have no justification to the range of dualities of your conception empirically.
The mind is an irreducible entity (it has no extension) so it cannot be found. The body, however, has an extension so it can be found.
HAHA.
If that is the case then what the hell are you blathering about?
All you are saying is that the mind is a concept only. It cannot be see, demonstrated or established as a thing.
The brain and what it does can be demonstrated, however.

Impenitent
Posts: 2773
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by Impenitent » Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:33 pm

zinnat13 wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:00 pm
With due respect to Hume and other philosophers, no other philosopher in the whole of human history has ever harmed mankind that much to what extent he did.

With love,
Sanjay
how many millions of humans have died because of the utopia of marx?

-Imp

zinnat13
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 7:30 pm
Location: India

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by zinnat13 » Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:12 pm

Impenitent wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:33 pm
zinnat13 wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:00 pm
With due respect to Hume and other philosophers, no other philosopher in the whole of human history has ever harmed mankind that much to what extent he did.

With love,
Sanjay
how many millions of humans have died because of the utopia of marx?

-Imp
That is true But in the long context, which is necessary while evaluating perpatual things like mankind, i think that Hume is more guilty because he inflicted the human thinking. The course of the philosophy also changed entirely after him.

with love,
sanjay

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 7181
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by henry quirk » Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:16 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:29 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 7:18 am
Sculptor wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 11:48 pm


Are you talking about a cod or you?
Where does the mind end and the body begin?
You can add as many "ands" ans you like, but you have no justification to the range of dualities of your conception empirically.
The mind is an irreducible entity (it has no extension) so it cannot be found. The body, however, has an extension so it can be found.
HAHA.
If that is the case then what the hell are you blathering about?
All you are saying is that the mind is a concept only. It cannot be see, demonstrated or established as a thing.
The brain and what it does can be demonstrated, however.
The mind is information.

Mind states aren't brain states.

A man isn't just matter; he's equally information.

He's a composite of two very different things (information and matter), each useless without the other.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 7181
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by henry quirk » Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:22 pm

zinnat13 wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:12 pm
Impenitent wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:33 pm
zinnat13 wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:00 pm
With due respect to Hume and other philosophers, no other philosopher in the whole of human history has ever harmed mankind that much to what extent he did.

With love,
Sanjay
how many millions of humans have died because of the utopia of marx?

-Imp
That is true But in the long context, which is necessary while evaluating perpatual things like mankind, i think that Hume is more guilty because he inflicted the human thinking. The course of the philosophy also changed entirely after him.

with love,
sanjay
Seems to me, Marx and Hume are equally guilty. One pissed on man as sovereign individual, the other pissed on man's certainty and common sense.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by bahman » Sun Feb 16, 2020 10:00 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:29 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 7:18 am
Sculptor wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 11:48 pm


Are you talking about a cod or you?
Where does the mind end and the body begin?
You can add as many "ands" ans you like, but you have no justification to the range of dualities of your conception empirically.
The mind is an irreducible entity (it has no extension) so it cannot be found. The body, however, has an extension so it can be found.
HAHA.
If that is the case then what the hell are you blathering about?
All you are saying is that the mind is a concept only. It cannot be see, demonstrated or established as a thing.
The brain and what it does can be demonstrated, however.
No. Mind is a thing. Which sort of thing? A thing with the ability to experience, decide and cause.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by bahman » Sun Feb 16, 2020 10:25 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:16 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:29 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 7:18 am

The mind is an irreducible entity (it has no extension) so it cannot be found. The body, however, has an extension so it can be found.
HAHA.
If that is the case then what the hell are you blathering about?
All you are saying is that the mind is a concept only. It cannot be see, demonstrated or established as a thing.
The brain and what it does can be demonstrated, however.
The mind is information.

Mind states aren't brain states.

A man isn't just matter; he's equally information.

He's a composite of two very different things (information and matter), each useless without the other.
No, information exists in physical that you/mind perceive/experience.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 1716
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by Sculptor » Sun Feb 16, 2020 10:40 pm

bahman wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 10:00 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:29 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 7:18 am

The mind is an irreducible entity (it has no extension) so it cannot be found. The body, however, has an extension so it can be found.
HAHA.
If that is the case then what the hell are you blathering about?
All you are saying is that the mind is a concept only. It cannot be see, demonstrated or established as a thing.
The brain and what it does can be demonstrated, however.
No. Mind is a thing. Which sort of thing? A thing with the ability to experience, decide and cause.
Experience is physical.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by bahman » Sun Feb 16, 2020 10:42 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 10:40 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 10:00 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:29 pm

HAHA.
If that is the case then what the hell are you blathering about?
All you are saying is that the mind is a concept only. It cannot be see, demonstrated or established as a thing.
The brain and what it does can be demonstrated, however.
No. Mind is a thing. Which sort of thing? A thing with the ability to experience, decide and cause.
Experience is physical.
Are you an experience or a thing/mind?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest